Climate Change

[smirkymonkey]

How serious is this and what will things look like over the next decade if Bush wins the election??

If a dem wins, especially Kerry, can the damage be reversed or at least stemmed?

What are the real world, day to day implications for us here in the U.S. and abroad?

[Sophree]

1. Don't know if you saw this Truthout article

It's a must read:

(It's actually from the UK Observer- which is the conservative one, I believe)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022304G.shtml

Now the Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us
By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris
The Observer

Sunday 22 February 2004

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

[smirkymonkey]

2. Thanks for the link...

It sounds pretty scary, but if we get * out of office then maybe it won't get so out of hand.

[ThomWV]

3. Bush I Irrelevent

Even if Bush is tossed out on his ass it won't do a bit of good as far as global warming goes if we - and I do mean WE - don't immediately stop dumping garbage into the air at the rate of thousands upon thousands of tons per year. I don't see that as likely to happen even when we win .... so how is the outcome any different other than by a slight difference in its timing if Bush wins?

And here's an answer you probably didn't want to hear. The only real answer is nuclear power.

[smirkymonkey]

8. Actually, I do not have the usual knee-jerk

opposition to nuclear power that one would expect from a liberal. My brother is a nuclear physicist and from him I have a much better understanding of the reality of the situation.

Although, I am aware that his opinion may be biased, I still think that nuclear energy is a viable option. I do, however, think we should explore and try to implement as many non-fossil fuel energy sources as possible, and as soon as possible as the depletion of oil may come sooner than we think.

Unfortunately, we have a government that squelches all alternative fuel and power initiatives in favor of the source that is making them filthy rich. Until we get that government out of office, this is unlikely to change.

[mac2]

11. Did he discuss where to bury it?

We have twelve nuclear power plants in the Northern section of Illinois. Some aren't active. Others have spent fuel stored at the facility with no place to bury it. Iou know..not in my back yard?

If they do take it to Navada, it will pass five miles from my home.

[smirkymonkey]

12. No, I will have to ask him about that, but

I know his focus is on nuclear waste cleanup and disposal. I know we have discussed it, but I don't remember what the outcome of the conversation was. He has a habit of getting defensive over certian issues, such as this. I don't think nuclear is the ideal, but I don't think it is quite as dangerous as people think either. I prefer to see solar, wind and hydroelctric as the first level of options.

Will have to get more info and get back to you.

[mac2]

10. It's a fear tactic like most things from the Pentagon propaganda..

Yes..global warming is a real issue.

As I thought about the article, I wondered. This warning is about fear isn't it? It's preparing us for disruption and conflict as a fact of life. It's blaming people being in the streets because of it. Not bad govenment policy by his administration and wars.

He's blaming Mother Nature being a WND more powerful than the Pentagon. Seems he found something that isn't Clinton's fault. At least not yet.

[brokensymmetry]

4. If * wins....

then when the crunch hits it will be very, very bad. If one of our Democratic candidates, such as Senator Kerry wins, it will be merely very bad.

Bottom line, expect an economy that will make us look back on today with nostalgia. Expect global disruption, and an endless stream of minor (and not so minor) wars over resources. Third world countries, such as Pakistan and India may well exchange nuclear weapons. And a great many will die of starvation. That's the optimistic scenario...

The pessimistic scenario is likely to be a great deal worse.

You can use the brakes, but one needs distance to stop - without the distance, one cannot succeed. With preparation for climate change, one needs time. I'm not at all sure we have sufficient time.

[Jim__]

5. My understanding ...

There is an environmental inertia and if we stopped pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere today, it would take about 20 years for us to see the full effects of this change.

Nobody can predict the exact effects of Global Warming but there are a number of scenarios. From the catastrophic - the ocean which is currently a sink for CO2 becomes a source - this will happen at some temperature but nobody knows what that temperature is - if that happens, the earth will essentially cook - bye bye humans although some life forms may thrive. A sort of middle-ground effect is that fresh, warm water stops sinking to the bottom of the ocean in the North Atlantic (this is due to the fresher water being lighter than the current saltier water that reaches the North Atlantic) - this stops the flow of warm water from the equator to the pole and leads to ice age conditions in much of Europe. The desalinization of the water reaching the North Atlantic and a decrease in this flow has already been measured.

The least effect is a gradual increase in temperature (I think the range predicted is something like 2 to 10 degrees fahrenheit - that's from memory and may be off). This causes certain islands to sink beneath the ocean and changes in the weather patterns that would likely leave the US farm-belt in a state of permanent drought. The good farm land would probably slowly move north to Canada; but, there would be a number of disastrous years while society adjusted.

Some people think the long-term effects would be beneficial - longer growing seasons, more arable land. But I think even if that were accurate, the disruption to the current state of society and the economy would cause severe problem for a number of decades.

[meow mix]

6. permafrost areas have been going "bad" for years

which is another big source, things are just barely gettin started.

"Soil in the Arctic is frozen to as deep as one-thousand meters. But rising temperatures can change permafrost into a soft, liquid-like material. Scientists say the melting permafrost is already damaging roads, buildings and structures in Greenland and parts of Russia, Canada and Norway"

http://www.manythings.org/voa/01/010216er_t.htm

[BillZBubb]

7. The next decade won't see much serious change

No matter who wins, short term what is going to happen will happen since the CO2 is already in the atmosphere. Still, nothing too serious should happen in the next ten years anyway given the slow rate of temperature rise.

I'm not optimistic that Kerry or any Democrat for that matter can do much on this issue. The effects are too subtle. Americans don't react to this kind of thing until something drastic happens. Until then, the Repugs will be able to keep saying we don't have to worry and to do anything will cost jobs. And the public will buy it. I'm a glass is half empty guy on this issue.

[smirkymonkey]

9. Yes, but I think Kerry is much more pro-environment

than some other candidates and certainly more so than the current administration. I think he understands the urgency of the situation.

It seems like the sooner we are able to implement other alternatives to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, the better the chances are that we can at least deter climatic disaster and possibly reverse it.

That will NEVER happen as long as the current administration is in power. I really think that it will get much worse quickly.